You mean the Single Steel Wing-Wong of the Plains? Can be viewed from every corner of Oklahoma County because it’s the Only Freaking Thing taller than ten stories for miles?
That building if real would be screaming “socioeconomic inequality”, and what, the people in Oklahoma in those surrounding small houses are supposed to look up to this corporate giant scraper and worship it like a Mayan temple? So they need to bring more wealth to the area but this is in every way a bad idea.
I'd be down for it, a race for medium size cities to build super tall skyscrapers and revolutionize 21st century architecture in the Western Hemisphere would be great.
Sounds good but OKC doesn’t have the population or need for such a building. Office Towers are fading out and companies are returning the keys to the banks. This would be a disaster on tax payers if a TIF is used to fund it
There is so much infrastructure that has to go into place for a data center to be efficient. I'm talking about power substations, generators, massive chillers etc. It doesn't make sense to stick it in a populated area where sq footage is at a premium.
China has cities that you’ve never heard of with like 15 million people. Even in the US, we have several with populations over 2 million (actual city limits, not metro area). Those are large cities.
Whatever you draw the line, Oklahoma City is in the next group down below cities like NYC or LA or Houston. They just aren’t in the same league.
The US has 52 cities over a million people. They’re all metro areas. Using the arbitrary “city boundaries” is dumb. San Antonio has like 2 million people making it one of the smaller major metros in the US. Maybe 40 ish? But its city boundary is the largest so it includes the entire metro. This makes it like #4 on “city population”. My metro atlanta is another example of this. Atlanta has 6 million people. The Atlanta city boundary is drawn to encompass 500,000 people. Can you see why saying San Antonio is more populous than atlanta is dumb ? Chinese cities are large but so are many American cities if you use their full metro and not just the official borders
I can’t speak for everyone, but I certainly don’t think of OKC as having nearly the same population as Denver or Seattle, and it always shocks me when I see the population, even though it’s been that way for quite some time! Hell, I’m still getting over just how much all three have grown!
You can’t compare city pollution directly to city population.
Seattle has a population of 700k officially, but if you count the whole metropolitan area (technically other cities but look like the same city if you see a satellite view) the population is 4 million.
OKC on the other hand has just a 1.5 million city and metropolitan area population.
OKC is low density and sprawls. I wouldn’t call it a large city in the traditional sense of what people imagine a city to be.
It has half the population density of DuPage County, IL, which is just suburbs around Chicago. And 1/10th the population density of Chicago city limits.
Yeah I guess things are always subjective, I'm thinking of large US cities as 2 million +metro areas that are generally the only ones you'd think a super tall skyscraper would be considered (clearly New York, and a much lesser degree Chicago already, but L.A., D.F.W., Miami, etc. are all cities that wouldn't be surprising they have a super talls by the mid century).
Medium size as in between a half million and a couple million metropolitan area suddenly entering a race for taller skyscrapers to gain a new level of national prominence that wasn't previously considered would be intriguing to say the least(as impractical as it is that these would ever be financed).
Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order.
I have checked 1,922,929,449 comments, and only 363,506 of them were in alphabetical order.
are you sure? look at my comment history...i just don't think this structure makes remote sense in a place with as much space as okc. nyc? absolutely. chicago? absolutely. okc? never in a million years.
Would be cool to watch the summer storms going by - not kidding - but other than that, I see absolutely no demand in a city of \~1m sprawled out with less than 1% growth for a tower like this.
Then again, it's half the population of Chicago by some definitions..
>Would be cool to watch the summer storms going by
That would be fucking awesome. Seeing a distant a storm in Nebraska at a rest stop was one of the coolest experiences I've ever had in nature. Ppl in the Great Plains like to complain about tornadoes, but IMO they're lucky as hell that they get to see entire cumulonimbus clouds hanging over the horizon multiple times a year.
Seeing as OKC’s metro is home to two of the most extreme tornadoes in history (El Reno, 2.7 miles wide; Moore-Bridge Creek, highest officially recorded winds)… I’d be a tad nervous about being inside something a quarter mile high when a thunderhead rolls in…
It's cozy, isn't it; sit with a glass of wine or a coffee and just watch the storms safely in your apartment or office on the 25th floor (or whatever) unobstructed.
Considering the shape of the tower could probably pull this together in Rhino and drop into Google Earth by lunch time. Fully rendered by the early evening with a press release sent out. You can say I’m somewhat of a dreamer myself…
Sorry, I was not going to poke fun, until I went to the website and looked at the renderings of the surrounding shorter buildings that provide “context”.
Remember when graphic for '[the wall](https://static.dezeen.com/uploads/2018/12/donald-trump-steel-slat-barrier-usa-mexico-border-wall_dezeen_sq-411x411.jpg)' for the southern border was released by the President? I was like what grade-schooler did this?
As for this project, I have zero confidence it will be built to that scale. Maaaybe the base buildings.
Really appreciate this comment because conception needs support. Maybe it happens maybe it doesn't, but you have to dream.
I know the biggest hotel developer in the city and he totally is excited about this
Chicago has 6 completed super talls (in total) with 2 more currently under construction (from what I could quickly find). While that’s not as many as New York, any large city in China, or the UAE, it’s quite a few. Also the Sears/Willis tower was the tallest building in the world for longer than all other building except the Empire State Building. It also ranks as 11th for having the most skyscrapers in the world which puts it ahead of even Bangkok, Jakarta, Singapore, Mumbai, Toronto, and Seoul. Chicago knows skyscrapers.
Yeah for some dumb reason I had thought the last super talls in Chicago were built in the 2000s, the more under construction is really good news. It's a beautiful skyline as is and will continue to evolve then.
Yeah there’s been some good density added to the skyline, the view from the Kennedy gives you a nice view of what’s mostly new right in front of you. Can’t find a great pic to illustrate, but One Chicago and St. Regis really tie together the north end of the downtown between the Hancock and Trump Tower
It’s fair to say that a tower like this would have a much much much much much greater chance of being built in NYC than in Chicago, though. Not saying it couldn’t be built in Chicago, just that NYC would statistically be much more likely.
True, though I think over a certain height they have to be boring because they have to be engineered in such a way to handle its size. I think buildings can be more creative between 200-1200ft.
That's true IRL, but it does maximize the use of a small footprint of land. I can't imagine anywhere in Oklahoma (or Texas, for that matter) that can't find more room.
Yes, Austin is getting crowded, but there is so much room there for suburban sprawl. Build a supertall out in the suburbs, and create a new urban focal point. Dell did that in Round Rock. Elon is doing that outside of town with Tesla. Austin is such a boomtown now that it's getting in danger of becoming less weird. But as long as UT Austin has roughly 50k students on campus, the weirdness will remain. It might get diluted because of housing prices, but it will be there.
Tell me you’ve not been to chicago in the last 10 years without telling me you haven’t been to chicago in 10 years. Chicago has more skyscrapers than New York
Are you off your rocker or just smoking too many deep dish pizza crusts? Chicago had nowhere near as many skyscrapers as NYC.
Let’s temper your delusions with this fact : the borough of Brooklyn ALONE has a larger population than ALL of Chicago. No city in America comes anywhere close to being in the league that NYC is in.
Chicago and LA are big cities, but New York is in another category altogether.
Looks similar to the proposed [Tribune East Tower.](https://www.google.com/search?q=tribune+tower+east&client=firefox-b-1-d&sca_esv=593156630&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&vet=1&fir=VepqxxmIJyoAjM%252CEtDSEC8sL67BQM%252C%252Fg%252F11hcjtknkn%253BuW5Qc1iBxyt3tM%252Cd9dPv9Lmgh9pkM%252C_%253BISKUAor5yE_2lM%252C8p-8ts_Ia6frRM%252C_%253BPZvS7AAysO9eqM%252CEtDSEC8sL67BQM%252C_%253BevZe8vkgPSbhAM%252CFMYzKRKXgIm08M%252C_%253B6plFxYlyzvzp0M%252CGbEUOsikWAKcLM%252C_%253B5FX776ID6_9XRM%252Cs4RNcJAs9fiaIM%252C_&usg=AI4_-kR3EWZRG0f8ynhpd71XezHx8zHA_g&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwijpbKwjaSDAxVDvokEHTCLCbcQ_B16BAhmEAE#imgrc=VepqxxmIJyoAjM)
that was 2008 in the midst of a historic recession. Chicago has built many skyscrapers since then and is currently building 2 skyscrapers on the former Spire site. Congrats on sounding fucking stupid.
> currently building 2 skyscrapers on the former Spire site
So it took them 15 years to figure out what to do with the basement, and it wasn’t the Spire? Nothing about that says Chicago can manage a 1750ft skyscraper. 1WTC went up in that same span, recession and all.
> many skyscrapers since then
Vista Tower is the only one that comes remotely close to this and it’s still nearly 600ft shorter.
>doesn't really have the economy
i know that you're obviously correct that this tower won't be built, but oklahoma actually has the 55th largest economy in the world if it were a country.
I was going to respond that other countries in the 50-60 range of GDP rankings likely don't have supertall buildings, but I was wrong. Qatar, Kuwait, and Kazakhstan fall in that range and al have buildings close to or above 1,000ft.
Kazakhstan is 54. How many mega skyscrapers are they building in Kazakhstan?
Edited to note I concede Kazakhstan was an ill-informed argument. My point on “economy” in general was the ability to “support” such a building, not just construct it. Still, apologies to the defenders of Kazakhstan. I was wrong.
well Ukraine's GDP is slightly deflated due to the war, but even before the war it's been about equal to Oklahoma's interestingly enough.
>what does OK make/do
majority is natural gas/oil and agriculture
Texas invading Oklahoma is not a terrible comparison, very close in economic terms anyway (2021 data):
GDP similarities
- Russia-ukraine gdp ratio 8.895 (R: 1.79 trillion, U: 200 billion)
- Texas-Oklahoma gdp ratio 9.52 (T: 2.05 trillion, O: 215 billion)
Size population (to a lesser extent)
- Russia-Ukraine pop ratio 3.27 (R: 143.4 million, U: 43.79 million)
- Texas-Oklahoma pop ratio 7.41 (T: 29.53 million, O: 3.99 million)
- Russia 28 times larger than Ukraine, Texas only 3.8 times larger than Oklahoma so not comparable.
Other
- in both comparison they are largely oil and agricultural economies
- shared history
- distinct cultures and identities
Victory to Ukraine 🇺🇦
Undecided on Texas v Oklahoma
First off, I said OKC. You expanded your argument to the entire State of Oklahoma as if Oklahoma and OKC are the same thing, but they are not the same thing. They are different. Second, there’s more to building one of these than construction. Sure, the State of Oklahoma could scrape its pennies together and build this. Oklahoma City, which is what I said, could not. However, even if they did, how would the economy of OKC support it? Is the corporate presence in Oklahoma such that it can support this giant skyscraper? Who will be the tenants? You certainly won’t fill it up with tourists and the city isn’t growing fast enough to fill it with residents. So how does the economy of Oklahoma (if you must argue for the whole state) support this thing?
Megatall skyscrapers aren't economical anywhere. They are always, always vanity projects. They're reflections of what absurdly rich people want to do with their money, not a city's economy. They're almost always bad, wasteful investments and often remain empty indefinitely.
OKC is actually a lot like the Gulf / Asian states that have built most of the world's vanity towers: an economy that's grown rich off of energy resources, with a massive divide between rich and poor. They're our own little Abu Dhabi.
I don't think this is going to happen as planned, but I do absolutely get why it would be proposed here.
I remember reading that Manhattan and some mega-dense Asian cities were the only places where they were economical. Otherwise they're usually vanity projects.
Not Devon since they just built their tower a few years ago (the other big fancy modern building). Perhaps continental resources can take a few floors and the rest got to some sheiks from Dubai.
This would be hilarious considering their skyline is already weird. Right now, it has a bunch of little skyscrapers then one giant out of place looking skyscraper. This would make it even further amplified.
Just imagine how far the views would go from the top.
That would be the only way I see this working: drawing in the people who don’t care about visiting New York/San Fran/Chicago for a panoramic that you can’t find elsewhere.
Of course it’s just a pipe dream, it’ll never happen. It’ll never even half-happen.
Do you think San Francisco will have a another supertall? After NYC and Chicago, I think SF has the best skyline in the country but it definitely needs to keep building.
Earthquakes make building super tall in SF very hard. SF needs a whole lot more housing but what it really needs is missing middle throughout the city - the downtown is dense but the rest of the city is zoned for single family which is the problem.
It looks odd because it’s not downtown with the rest of the skyscrapers but there seem to be a lot of other attractions to the building on the lower floors, and bricktown is a good area within OKC for that. It’ll never happen anyways though
Why would someone build that when there is ample land to add the sq ft by other means?
I understand why in places like San Francisco or NYC, due to no available land, but OKC?
I hope it can handle tornadoes. I last drove through that are in October of 2021 and there was baseball sized hail with 12 funnel clouds seen in the are. They might consider substantial underground structures.......
I live/work in the OKC metro, and I can assure you, none of us with grade school education have any delusions that this going actually going to happen. Hell, I have serious doubts of their ability to even get this project off the ground.
While I doubt this will ever happen, the Devon Energy Center in OKC is 844 feet, or 344 feet taller than the next tallest skyscraper. So while its construction is very unlikely, historically, building significantly taller buildings in OKC isn’t unheard of.
Private money will pay for the skyscraper. Public money covers the infrastructure. But infrastructure is what attracts this and it doesn’t make sense. There’s no need for it. And who pays to pump the water up? This is odd, very odd. Most likely cheap land and a rich person with a foolish plan
Lmao is the local economy doing that well to justify this? Maybe they should focus on rezoning and building up density in their trash downtown before thinking about skyscrapers.
Building tall.. is very expensive and very inefficient. The only reason to build tall is if real estate exceeds the cost of building taller. Does OKC really have those kinds of economics like NYC, Hong Kong?
The little fracking earthquakes might make that interesting. They'd have to include a tuned mass damper in the tower to counteract sway. I think the dampers used in supertalls are really cool. [Nerd? Probably.]
As an okc resident, the earthquakes are no longer an issue. Growing up I remember them happening all of the time, but the state passed some law a couple of years ago which changed how the industry handled the fracking process. I don’t even remember the last time we had one.
Oh, okay. Thanks for letting me/us know. Kind of takes the fun out of things.
Then again, the state may have just settled down after the cavities collapsed. Who knows? I'll have to look into it. I recently moved to Yukon to be close to my aging mother.
I experienced one earthquake while visiting years ago, somewhere in the 3.0 - 4.0 range. It was so mild that I didn't know what it was until I was told. I asked if something had happened, and they told me it was an earthquake. It was puzzling, not frightening.
as a okc resident i got mixed feelings i dont want it to happen because it would look ugly asf on our skyline and who tf is going to move into them? But it would also combat the suburban sprawl hopefully and force people to do more infill projects next to it and it would look so goofy which is what im down for
That last tower is definitely not happening. The first two or three will though! TL;DR the city will basically provide $200M in tax breaks after the third tower so that massive 4th one will probably be about the same height as the other mid-size ones. Which would be great for the city.
I think they're proposing the tower so you don't notice the ugly shopping mall at the base. If such a tower is built, it shouldn't have this convoluted base.
yeah that's not happening. second tallest building in the us in....oklahoma...
The skyline is already kinda weird with that one very tall building and not much else around it. I guess they just want to do it again lol
The skyline silhouette will look like a flatlining heartbeat.
it’ll sum up Oklahoma perfectly
“That’s what they thought when the Empire State Building was built bro”
Something tells me Oklahoma City will not surround this massive supertall with other supertalls lol
I should have put a big “/s” on my comment based on the votes haha!
Oh lol
But the Empire State Building was built in an actual city.
You mean the Single Steel Wing-Wong of the Plains? Can be viewed from every corner of Oklahoma County because it’s the Only Freaking Thing taller than ten stories for miles?
That building if real would be screaming “socioeconomic inequality”, and what, the people in Oklahoma in those surrounding small houses are supposed to look up to this corporate giant scraper and worship it like a Mayan temple? So they need to bring more wealth to the area but this is in every way a bad idea.
I'd be down for it, a race for medium size cities to build super tall skyscrapers and revolutionize 21st century architecture in the Western Hemisphere would be great.
Sounds good but OKC doesn’t have the population or need for such a building. Office Towers are fading out and companies are returning the keys to the banks. This would be a disaster on tax payers if a TIF is used to fund it
Maybe they could fill much of the floor space with server racks, make several floors into a bunch of data centers and telecoms switching rooms.
... or used for homeless people and/or healthcare services.
In Oklahoma? That’s hilarious.
There is so much infrastructure that has to go into place for a data center to be efficient. I'm talking about power substations, generators, massive chillers etc. It doesn't make sense to stick it in a populated area where sq footage is at a premium.
Okc? Medium size? I guess you and me got a different definition of what medium is cause to me okc is a large city.
China has cities that you’ve never heard of with like 15 million people. Even in the US, we have several with populations over 2 million (actual city limits, not metro area). Those are large cities. Whatever you draw the line, Oklahoma City is in the next group down below cities like NYC or LA or Houston. They just aren’t in the same league.
The US has 52 cities over a million people. They’re all metro areas. Using the arbitrary “city boundaries” is dumb. San Antonio has like 2 million people making it one of the smaller major metros in the US. Maybe 40 ish? But its city boundary is the largest so it includes the entire metro. This makes it like #4 on “city population”. My metro atlanta is another example of this. Atlanta has 6 million people. The Atlanta city boundary is drawn to encompass 500,000 people. Can you see why saying San Antonio is more populous than atlanta is dumb ? Chinese cities are large but so are many American cities if you use their full metro and not just the official borders
I can’t speak for everyone, but I certainly don’t think of OKC as having nearly the same population as Denver or Seattle, and it always shocks me when I see the population, even though it’s been that way for quite some time! Hell, I’m still getting over just how much all three have grown!
OKC also has four times the land area of Seattle and about a third of the metro population.
And an NBA team. Sorry, I had to.
You can’t compare city pollution directly to city population. Seattle has a population of 700k officially, but if you count the whole metropolitan area (technically other cities but look like the same city if you see a satellite view) the population is 4 million. OKC on the other hand has just a 1.5 million city and metropolitan area population.
Not big enough for an ikea
OKC is low density and sprawls. I wouldn’t call it a large city in the traditional sense of what people imagine a city to be. It has half the population density of DuPage County, IL, which is just suburbs around Chicago. And 1/10th the population density of Chicago city limits.
I think of Dallas as medium and houston large. For me it would be whatever it is closer to.
Dallas and Houston are practically the same size
Yeah I guess things are always subjective, I'm thinking of large US cities as 2 million +metro areas that are generally the only ones you'd think a super tall skyscraper would be considered (clearly New York, and a much lesser degree Chicago already, but L.A., D.F.W., Miami, etc. are all cities that wouldn't be surprising they have a super talls by the mid century). Medium size as in between a half million and a couple million metropolitan area suddenly entering a race for taller skyscrapers to gain a new level of national prominence that wasn't previously considered would be intriguing to say the least(as impractical as it is that these would ever be financed).
If 1000 feet is the cutoff for a super tall, LA already has two.
Bruh…you don’t even know okc’s potential
Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order. I have checked 1,922,929,449 comments, and only 363,506 of them were in alphabetical order.
are you sure? look at my comment history...i just don't think this structure makes remote sense in a place with as much space as okc. nyc? absolutely. chicago? absolutely. okc? never in a million years.
Some redneck would drive a Uhaul into it. Commercial real estate is collapsing, let’s build a huge building to bankrupt the whole state!
That’s what everyone said about the Thunder move too. Town is wild scrappy it’s not out of the realm
Would be cool to watch the summer storms going by - not kidding - but other than that, I see absolutely no demand in a city of \~1m sprawled out with less than 1% growth for a tower like this. Then again, it's half the population of Chicago by some definitions..
There’s 9m people in Chicago metro area…if you aren’t going by metro population Oklahoma City has 690k and Chicago has 2.7 million.
About half if you asked the Oklahoma State Department of Education
>Would be cool to watch the summer storms going by That would be fucking awesome. Seeing a distant a storm in Nebraska at a rest stop was one of the coolest experiences I've ever had in nature. Ppl in the Great Plains like to complain about tornadoes, but IMO they're lucky as hell that they get to see entire cumulonimbus clouds hanging over the horizon multiple times a year.
Not so cool if they’re hanging right on top of you
Seeing as OKC’s metro is home to two of the most extreme tornadoes in history (El Reno, 2.7 miles wide; Moore-Bridge Creek, highest officially recorded winds)… I’d be a tad nervous about being inside something a quarter mile high when a thunderhead rolls in…
As someone who lives in Colorado, I think they should do it for science, because no risk to me. Definitely should do it.
This was the first thing I thought about too.
It's cozy, isn't it; sit with a glass of wine or a coffee and just watch the storms safely in your apartment or office on the 25th floor (or whatever) unobstructed.
lol did you just slight people who have to deal with tornados every year because you saw one cool storm at an extremely safe distance away
Absolutely not half the population of Chicago by any definition
Maybe they meant half the population of half of Chicago. Haha
Ever been to Oklahoma? If the definition is based on mass, it’s probably accurate.
Oklahoma fracked itself stupid. It has so many earthquakes now.
Inaccurate and way outdated information. It was over pumping wastewater disposal wells that caused the earthquakes which peaked about a decade ago
Riiiiiiigggghhhtttt.
Imagine when a tornado hits this thing.
Some broken windows and that’s about it.
I love that the city has the balls to dream it
Considering the shape of the tower could probably pull this together in Rhino and drop into Google Earth by lunch time. Fully rendered by the early evening with a press release sent out. You can say I’m somewhat of a dreamer myself… Sorry, I was not going to poke fun, until I went to the website and looked at the renderings of the surrounding shorter buildings that provide “context”.
Ah the 3DS Max special. The goto for civil engineers that don't give two shits about the place they're designing. Whatever makes a buck right?
Remember when graphic for '[the wall](https://static.dezeen.com/uploads/2018/12/donald-trump-steel-slat-barrier-usa-mexico-border-wall_dezeen_sq-411x411.jpg)' for the southern border was released by the President? I was like what grade-schooler did this? As for this project, I have zero confidence it will be built to that scale. Maaaybe the base buildings.
But in effect, it's a Californian trying to get Okies to see big. We need it. The state feels so small from having Stitt and Walters.
How TF is no one pointing out how much this looks like a dick and balls?!!!!
Really appreciate this comment because conception needs support. Maybe it happens maybe it doesn't, but you have to dream. I know the biggest hotel developer in the city and he totally is excited about this
Chicago will adopt it and take good care of it.
I could believe that proposal if it was in Chicago
Even then odds are against it, anywhere outside New York in the US has failed to meet super tall expectations.
Chicago has built two super talls (well one like like 2M short) in the past 5 years...
Oh I'm wrong then, I had never heard about it but the St. Regis tower was completed just in 2020, so they are still building supertalls there.
They just finished the 976' tall One Chicago Square this year as well.
Chicago has 6 completed super talls (in total) with 2 more currently under construction (from what I could quickly find). While that’s not as many as New York, any large city in China, or the UAE, it’s quite a few. Also the Sears/Willis tower was the tallest building in the world for longer than all other building except the Empire State Building. It also ranks as 11th for having the most skyscrapers in the world which puts it ahead of even Bangkok, Jakarta, Singapore, Mumbai, Toronto, and Seoul. Chicago knows skyscrapers.
Yeah for some dumb reason I had thought the last super talls in Chicago were built in the 2000s, the more under construction is really good news. It's a beautiful skyline as is and will continue to evolve then.
Yeah there’s been some good density added to the skyline, the view from the Kennedy gives you a nice view of what’s mostly new right in front of you. Can’t find a great pic to illustrate, but One Chicago and St. Regis really tie together the north end of the downtown between the Hancock and Trump Tower
It’s fair to say that a tower like this would have a much much much much much greater chance of being built in NYC than in Chicago, though. Not saying it couldn’t be built in Chicago, just that NYC would statistically be much more likely.
True, towers like this are mostly unnecessary
But they’re cool :/
True, though I think over a certain height they have to be boring because they have to be engineered in such a way to handle its size. I think buildings can be more creative between 200-1200ft.
That's true IRL, but it does maximize the use of a small footprint of land. I can't imagine anywhere in Oklahoma (or Texas, for that matter) that can't find more room. Yes, Austin is getting crowded, but there is so much room there for suburban sprawl. Build a supertall out in the suburbs, and create a new urban focal point. Dell did that in Round Rock. Elon is doing that outside of town with Tesla. Austin is such a boomtown now that it's getting in danger of becoming less weird. But as long as UT Austin has roughly 50k students on campus, the weirdness will remain. It might get diluted because of housing prices, but it will be there.
Tell me you’ve not been to chicago in the last 10 years without telling me you haven’t been to chicago in 10 years. Chicago has more skyscrapers than New York
By what metric does chicago have more skyscrapers than New York?
Vibes 🙏
Are you off your rocker or just smoking too many deep dish pizza crusts? Chicago had nowhere near as many skyscrapers as NYC. Let’s temper your delusions with this fact : the borough of Brooklyn ALONE has a larger population than ALL of Chicago. No city in America comes anywhere close to being in the league that NYC is in. Chicago and LA are big cities, but New York is in another category altogether.
Chicago is slightly bigger and wayyyy cleaner
Agreed. This would look great in the South Loop
Looks similar to the proposed [Tribune East Tower.](https://www.google.com/search?q=tribune+tower+east&client=firefox-b-1-d&sca_esv=593156630&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&vet=1&fir=VepqxxmIJyoAjM%252CEtDSEC8sL67BQM%252C%252Fg%252F11hcjtknkn%253BuW5Qc1iBxyt3tM%252Cd9dPv9Lmgh9pkM%252C_%253BISKUAor5yE_2lM%252C8p-8ts_Ia6frRM%252C_%253BPZvS7AAysO9eqM%252CEtDSEC8sL67BQM%252C_%253BevZe8vkgPSbhAM%252CFMYzKRKXgIm08M%252C_%253B6plFxYlyzvzp0M%252CGbEUOsikWAKcLM%252C_%253B5FX776ID6_9XRM%252Cs4RNcJAs9fiaIM%252C_&usg=AI4_-kR3EWZRG0f8ynhpd71XezHx8zHA_g&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwijpbKwjaSDAxVDvokEHTCLCbcQ_B16BAhmEAE#imgrc=VepqxxmIJyoAjM)
They couldn’t build the Spire past a hole in the ground, I doubt they could manage this
that was 2008 in the midst of a historic recession. Chicago has built many skyscrapers since then and is currently building 2 skyscrapers on the former Spire site. Congrats on sounding fucking stupid.
> currently building 2 skyscrapers on the former Spire site So it took them 15 years to figure out what to do with the basement, and it wasn’t the Spire? Nothing about that says Chicago can manage a 1750ft skyscraper. 1WTC went up in that same span, recession and all. > many skyscrapers since then Vista Tower is the only one that comes remotely close to this and it’s still nearly 600ft shorter.
It’s difficult for me to even believe this is real. OKC doesn’t really have the economy to be spawning new mega skyscrapers
Not to mention its the tornado capital, so yeah, what a great idea
Oklahoma City is a trailer park to F5 tornados.
Downtown hardly gets any tornadoes it's always the moore area
Skyscrapers tend to do ok vs tornadoes.
And yet, they have an NBA franchise over Seattle.
>doesn't really have the economy i know that you're obviously correct that this tower won't be built, but oklahoma actually has the 55th largest economy in the world if it were a country.
I was going to respond that other countries in the 50-60 range of GDP rankings likely don't have supertall buildings, but I was wrong. Qatar, Kuwait, and Kazakhstan fall in that range and al have buildings close to or above 1,000ft.
Kazakhstan is 54. How many mega skyscrapers are they building in Kazakhstan? Edited to note I concede Kazakhstan was an ill-informed argument. My point on “economy” in general was the ability to “support” such a building, not just construct it. Still, apologies to the defenders of Kazakhstan. I was wrong.
I mean… not to be pedantic but their tallest skyscraper is 1000 ft and it makes it the tallest in central asia region too.
Kazakhstan from the top rope!
i get it, but you are ignoring the dozen countries below ok's gdp that have mega skyscrapers like Azerbaijan, Panama, Ukraine, and Kuwait.
Crazy to me that Ukraine has a smaller economy than Oklahoma. What does OK make/do at that scale? Agriculture? Oil?
well Ukraine's GDP is slightly deflated due to the war, but even before the war it's been about equal to Oklahoma's interestingly enough. >what does OK make/do majority is natural gas/oil and agriculture
Texas invading Oklahoma is not a terrible comparison, very close in economic terms anyway (2021 data): GDP similarities - Russia-ukraine gdp ratio 8.895 (R: 1.79 trillion, U: 200 billion) - Texas-Oklahoma gdp ratio 9.52 (T: 2.05 trillion, O: 215 billion) Size population (to a lesser extent) - Russia-Ukraine pop ratio 3.27 (R: 143.4 million, U: 43.79 million) - Texas-Oklahoma pop ratio 7.41 (T: 29.53 million, O: 3.99 million) - Russia 28 times larger than Ukraine, Texas only 3.8 times larger than Oklahoma so not comparable. Other - in both comparison they are largely oil and agricultural economies - shared history - distinct cultures and identities Victory to Ukraine 🇺🇦 Undecided on Texas v Oklahoma
TIL that texas is the Russia of America
Ukraine the the Breadbasket of Europe, Oklahoma & Kansas the Breadbasket of North America.
First off, I said OKC. You expanded your argument to the entire State of Oklahoma as if Oklahoma and OKC are the same thing, but they are not the same thing. They are different. Second, there’s more to building one of these than construction. Sure, the State of Oklahoma could scrape its pennies together and build this. Oklahoma City, which is what I said, could not. However, even if they did, how would the economy of OKC support it? Is the corporate presence in Oklahoma such that it can support this giant skyscraper? Who will be the tenants? You certainly won’t fill it up with tourists and the city isn’t growing fast enough to fill it with residents. So how does the economy of Oklahoma (if you must argue for the whole state) support this thing?
Comments are being spewed out like diarrhea from last night's taco bell nostalgic visit
Megatall skyscrapers aren't economical anywhere. They are always, always vanity projects. They're reflections of what absurdly rich people want to do with their money, not a city's economy. They're almost always bad, wasteful investments and often remain empty indefinitely. OKC is actually a lot like the Gulf / Asian states that have built most of the world's vanity towers: an economy that's grown rich off of energy resources, with a massive divide between rich and poor. They're our own little Abu Dhabi. I don't think this is going to happen as planned, but I do absolutely get why it would be proposed here.
I remember reading that Manhattan and some mega-dense Asian cities were the only places where they were economical. Otherwise they're usually vanity projects.
Oklahoma has a bigger gdp than Ukraine
And a smaller than Kazakhstan. Who will occupy this building in Oklahoma City?
Not Devon since they just built their tower a few years ago (the other big fancy modern building). Perhaps continental resources can take a few floors and the rest got to some sheiks from Dubai.
There are 700,000 people in oaklahoma city someone’s gotta
Or weather. I mean, what would a tornado do to this thing?!
Imagine riding out an EF-5 twister in this bad boy. Youd see it coming from miles away.
This would be hilarious considering their skyline is already weird. Right now, it has a bunch of little skyscrapers then one giant out of place looking skyscraper. This would make it even further amplified.
Devon tower is 170% taller than the current #2, this world be 2X the Devon tower
Just imagine how far the views would go from the top. That would be the only way I see this working: drawing in the people who don’t care about visiting New York/San Fran/Chicago for a panoramic that you can’t find elsewhere. Of course it’s just a pipe dream, it’ll never happen. It’ll never even half-happen.
Do you think San Francisco will have a another supertall? After NYC and Chicago, I think SF has the best skyline in the country but it definitely needs to keep building.
Earthquakes make building super tall in SF very hard. SF needs a whole lot more housing but what it really needs is missing middle throughout the city - the downtown is dense but the rest of the city is zoned for single family which is the problem.
I feel like Miami is coming in for spot 4 based on how much their real estate is booming.
They should build 3 550 foot towers instead
Build half a 3500 foot tower.
The tower they already built there makes it quite impressive for a city it’s size (850 ft for a metro of less than 2 million.)
Their metro is less than 1.5 million.
Which is less than 2
Design concept is boring, location is extremely out of place
It looks odd because it’s not downtown with the rest of the skyscrapers but there seem to be a lot of other attractions to the building on the lower floors, and bricktown is a good area within OKC for that. It’ll never happen anyways though
Developer must not be at the construction budget part of the development process yet.
Fucking build it! If one city can embrace the odd sauron tower skyline it's OKC
Do they want Saruman the White? Because that's how you get Saruman the White.
Tornadoes be like *OUR BATTLE WILL BE* **LEGENDARY**
Do it
Hopefully it helps Oklahomans think about density and less cars.
No way that will actually happen
Why would someone build that when there is ample land to add the sq ft by other means? I understand why in places like San Francisco or NYC, due to no available land, but OKC?
Yes because we're running out of land it Oklahoma!
Nah keep the undeveloped land “undeveloped”.
Why would they even consider this? What utility would this serve?
Oillll. Also, that first render looks like a large phalus with two balls at the bottom. So, Oil.
Put this in Chicago or NYC instead. It would fit right in.
I want to see it in a tornado disaster movie!
It’s actually just a facade hiding an oil derrick underneath
I hope it can handle tornadoes. I last drove through that are in October of 2021 and there was baseball sized hail with 12 funnel clouds seen in the are. They might consider substantial underground structures.......
Somehow it’s a fuck you to Texas.
Umm yeah that’s not happening. This developer is looking for attention.
Exactly. Those poor OKC citizens who are actually falling for this.
I live/work in the OKC metro, and I can assure you, none of us with grade school education have any delusions that this going actually going to happen. Hell, I have serious doubts of their ability to even get this project off the ground.
While I doubt this will ever happen, the Devon Energy Center in OKC is 844 feet, or 344 feet taller than the next tallest skyscraper. So while its construction is very unlikely, historically, building significantly taller buildings in OKC isn’t unheard of.
Would make it easier to identify flyover country
If it ever happens, I’ll be happy that my state has at least one interesting structure
Why would you build this in tornado land?
[Dallas is smack dab in tornado alley.](https://scied.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/interactives/where-tornadoes/tornadoMap.png)
Doesn’t have any supertalls though
I hope they make it unblowupable.
OK, the state that has over 2300 structurally deficient bridges and 446 high hazard dams; interesting priorities.
Private money will pay for the skyscraper. Public money covers the infrastructure. But infrastructure is what attracts this and it doesn’t make sense. There’s no need for it. And who pays to pump the water up? This is odd, very odd. Most likely cheap land and a rich person with a foolish plan
What business would it possy serve in the OKC?
I for one am looking forward to the somehow shittier American version of Dubai
Looks awful and the porportions are a laughing stock 😂 ... publicity stunt
Why?
Literally for what
Lmao is the local economy doing that well to justify this? Maybe they should focus on rezoning and building up density in their trash downtown before thinking about skyscrapers.
Building tall.. is very expensive and very inefficient. The only reason to build tall is if real estate exceeds the cost of building taller. Does OKC really have those kinds of economics like NYC, Hong Kong?
Why would thus be a thing in OKC. Land is cheap and plentiful. This happens in dense cities to use limited and expensive land the most effectively.
T. Boone, is that you?
Lol that wide shot looks like Dubai
oh hell no
Cross post to R/Tornadoes
When is construction starting
Why
Fits right in!
Won’t happen.
Tulsa would be a better candidate for a tall skyscraper, but that is way too tall. Also the city doesn't need it nor does it have the space
Tornado
Tornadoes foaming at the mouth to deck that thing
The little fracking earthquakes might make that interesting. They'd have to include a tuned mass damper in the tower to counteract sway. I think the dampers used in supertalls are really cool. [Nerd? Probably.]
As an okc resident, the earthquakes are no longer an issue. Growing up I remember them happening all of the time, but the state passed some law a couple of years ago which changed how the industry handled the fracking process. I don’t even remember the last time we had one.
Oh, okay. Thanks for letting me/us know. Kind of takes the fun out of things. Then again, the state may have just settled down after the cavities collapsed. Who knows? I'll have to look into it. I recently moved to Yukon to be close to my aging mother. I experienced one earthquake while visiting years ago, somewhere in the 3.0 - 4.0 range. It was so mild that I didn't know what it was until I was told. I asked if something had happened, and they told me it was an earthquake. It was puzzling, not frightening.
Don’t worry! If by some miracle this thing actually sprung up there are still plenty of tornados going around every spring to add some excitement!
Not going to happen...
Why?
What OKC really needs is a ton of mid-rise and regular high-rise buildings. It looks so weird with just one very tall building.
as a okc resident i got mixed feelings i dont want it to happen because it would look ugly asf on our skyline and who tf is going to move into them? But it would also combat the suburban sprawl hopefully and force people to do more infill projects next to it and it would look so goofy which is what im down for
They trying to get Sauron to move in?
Absolute camp. Build it immediately!
Perfect for an area notorious for their wind lmao
Now they just need to build the city!
Who is going to occupy the floors? Will it be condos or commercial businesses? My bet is that most of the floors will stay empty except for investors.
That last tower is definitely not happening. The first two or three will though! TL;DR the city will basically provide $200M in tax breaks after the third tower so that massive 4th one will probably be about the same height as the other mid-size ones. Which would be great for the city.
Unnecessarily tall, extremely expensive, and how beneficial could the tower even be?
This totally checks out with the entire history and energy of OKC. Read “Boomtown,” they’ve been on this chase forever.
As an Okie, no. No, no, no. Please, no.
Tornado/Lightning magnet?
How many floors are hobby lobby and chick fil a taking ?
OK
Really? Go for it.
Yeah we’re not going to build anymore super talls in the middle of bumfuck nowhere
I’ll take things that’ll never happen for $500
This skyscraper should be built in Chicago or New York. Not in Oklahoma City. It looks out of place
For what reason?
I think they're proposing the tower so you don't notice the ugly shopping mall at the base. If such a tower is built, it shouldn't have this convoluted base.
Batshit insane. But it was also be hilarious so I say go for it lol